Witnesses:
Lisa
Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner
Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime
Commissioner
Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer & Treasurer
(OPCC)
Nathan Rees, Head of Communications and Engagement
(OPCC)
Key points
raised during the discussion:
- A
Member asked for clarification on the key findings of the public
consultation. The Head of Communication (OPCC) explained that 41%
supported the £13 precept increase, 11% supported a £12
increase, 2% supported a £11 increase, 7% supported a
£10 increase and 39% supported an increase under £10.
Overall, 61% of respondents supported a precept rise of £10
or above.
- A
Member asked how many police staff posts the Force would cut if a
lower precept was implemented. The Chief Finance Officer explained
that the Force would be looking at other ways to make efficiencies
and savings before reducing staff. A precise figure could not be
provided but each £1 on council tax represented around
£0.5 million, which represented around 12 staff
posts.
- A
Member queried if it was expected that most Police and Crime
Commissioners would be recommending the £13 precept increase.
The Commissioner explained that the government had assumed in its
funding allocation announcement that all Forces would increase by
the maximum amount of £13. The Commissioner’s
understanding following discussions with other Commissioners was
that they would be seeking the £13 precept increase, apart
from in Wales who were seeking more.
- A
Member asked about the 2024/25 proposed revenue budget increase of
7.3% on the current year, which was above inflation and above the
pay rise. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the largest
element of the increase was the result of the 7% pay rise and
increase in pension employer contributions. The Member asked about
the £7.1 million of savings required from the revenue budget
in 2025/26. The Chief Finance Officer explained that there were
plans to address the savings required in 2025/26 including via
transformational reviews in criminal justice, rationalising
evidence stores and work to streamline paper-based processes. It
would be a challenge and there was a risk that savings could be
pushed into future years. The Chief Finance Officer explained that
an impact on services in 2025/26 was a possibility but work was
being done to minimise this. This could also me impacted by a
change, such as receiving a larger grant, but the prediction could
only be based on the current estimates.
- A
Member queried the current anticipated underspend, and historic
underspends against the budget and suggested this cast doubt on
whether the full precept increase was needed. The Chief Finance
Officer explained that underspends were generally a one-off and had
arisen out of specific circumstances. In 2022/23 it was the phasing
of recruitment, particularly for uplift officers whereas in the
current year it was more to do with additional income. The factors
driving the underspends were not considered to be recurrent and
hence could not be assumed for future years. Unfortunately, due to
the capping rules it was not possible to make up any shortfall in
funding through Council Tax in future years and so a more prudent
approach was therefore necessary.
- The
Member highlighted that borough and district councils are
constrained in the amount they could increase council tax, whereas
the amount the Police and Crime Commissioner could increase had
generally been more generous. The Member queried if taking the
maximum council tax increase in this context was appropriate. The
Chief Finance Officer acknowledged that districts and boroughs were
more constrained but explained that Surrey Police were the lowest
proportionately funded police force in the country. This meant council tax was relied upon more to
fund policing than in other counties. Districts and boroughs also
had the ability to raise their own income for example through
parking charges and other discretionary services whereas the Force
did not have the same ability.
- A
Member asked how confident the OPCC was around the assumptions made
on non-pay inflation and what scale of additional financial
challenge further inflationary rises would present. The Chief
Finance Officer explained that for 2024/25, non-pay inflation had
been assumed at 3%, which was in line with the government’s
inflation target. 1% on non-pay would add about £600,000 in
costs, which was equivalent to about £1.20 on council tax. If
this happened the Force would initially look to try to absorb this,
such as by renegotiating contracts or buying less, but it could
result in staff reductions.
- A
Member asked if the Chief Constable had proposed any specific areas
for increased focus and investment if the precept was increased to
the maximum amount and how the OPCC would ensure that progress
would be robustly monitored. The Commissioner explained that the
Chief Constable was looking to deliver the core elements of his
vision, which was set out in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the report.
For residents, this would include answering calls faster;
responding to victims more quickly; increasing the number of
offenders charged and crimes detected; improving the response to
violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse;
maintaining visibility and responding robustly to public concerns
about lawlessness. The Force was in the process of agreeing a set
of quantitative indicators which would include a baseline and
targets for the various objectives of the Chief Constable’s
plan. These would be finalised shortly.
An update could be provided at the next Panel meeting.
- In
relation to an increase in the OPCC’s net operating costs of
11.4% in the next year, a Member asked if the Commissioner had
considered making any savings in office costs for example through
savings in public relations or doing without a deputy. The
Commissioner explained that none of the increase in operating costs
were due to any change in the office size, it was the result of
increases in current staff wages in line with the police pay rise.
The Chief Executive (OPCC) explained that the Surrey OPCC was still
one of the smallest in the country and it would not be the right
time to make any significant changes to the structure of the office
right before an election, although any new incumbent may wish to
revisit it.
- A
member asked about the 10% vacancy factor budgeted for Police Staff
in 2024/25 and how this compared to the current vacancy position of
around 13%. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the current
level of vacancies in Police Staff was due to challenges in
recruitment. Some areas of the Force had a vacancy margin of zero,
for example in the contact service, whereas others had a higher
factor depending on its operational risk. An element of the
transformation work would look to convert excess vacancies into
permanent reductions in staffing to embed savings. The areas with
the highest current vacancies relate to specialist crime,
particularly in forensics, people services and learning and
development. Putting police officers into vacant staff posts was
something the Force wanted to avoid unless it made sense
operationally.
- In
respect of the police funding formula, a Member asked what the
Commissioner thought the reasons were for the Home Office treating
Surrey unfairly. The Commissioner explained that she did not think
the Home Office treated Surrey unfairly but that it was the result
of an old funding formula that had been in place for too long. An
assumption could not be made that any potential change to the
funding formula would benefit Surrey, although the Commissioner
hoped Surrey would receive a better deal. The Member highlighted past comments by the
Commissioner that she could persuade the government to change the
funding formula to make it more favourable. The Commissioner stated that ministerial
commitments had been made to change the funding formula, and
numerous members of the Home Office believed this would
happen.
- A
Member asked about reduced estate costs and remote working, and if
a financial contingency had been considered if there was a drive to
more office-based work. The Commissioner explained that many of the
Force’s staff and Officers could do some work remotely, but
some areas such as contact, investigations and forensics could not
be done remotely. The future estates plan does assume a smaller
footprint which would lead to an increased utilisation of space,
from the current 32% to 86%, and a reduction in square meters per
person, from 14 to 8, bringing the Force more in line with national
trends. This reduction in estate operating costs would be needed to
fund the re-development of HQ.
- A
Member noted support for the precept proposal which equated to
around 25p per week extra for a Band D property. This represented
good value for money for Surrey residents. A Member asked about the assumption made that the
referendum limit for a precept rise in future years would be set at
2% and asked where this figure had come from. The Chief Finance
Officer explained that the OPCC had to make a best guess, but it
could be higher or lower.
- Summarising, the Chairman noted his support for the Police as an
ex-police officer, but also his appreciation that this was a
difficult time for residents many of whom were struggling
financially. The Chairman agreed with
the comments made publicly by the PCC that the central government
funding formula was unfair and that council tax payments of surrey
residents should not be relied upon, disproportionately, to fund
the force, as was currently the case.
- The
Chairman noted the recommendation in the report - That the Panel endorse the Surrey Police
and Crime Commissioner’s proposal to increase the Precept for
a Band D property by £13 (being a 4.2% increase) to
£323.57 in 2024/25 – and invited Panel members to
vote. A recorded vote was requested. Members were asked to
vote ‘yes’ (to endorse the precept), ‘no’
or to ‘abstain’ with the results as
follows:
Cllr Barry
J F Cheyne- Yes
Cllr Alex
Coley- No
Cllr
Daniella Newson- No
Cllr Paul
Kennedy- No
Cllr Victor
Lewanski- Yes
Cllr Nick
Prescot- Yes
Cllr Harry
Boparai- No
Cllr Keith
Witham- Yes
Cllr
Richard Wilson- No
Cllr
Richard Smith- Yes
Cllr Ellen
Nicholson- No
Mr Martin
Stilwell (Vice-Chairman)- Yes
Ms Juliet
Fryer- Yes
Cllr John
Robini (Chairman)- No
- Seven members voted for the proposal and seven
against. With the Chairman’s
casting vote the majority did not support the precept proposal and
the meeting was adjourned for private deliberation by the Panel
around potential use of the Panel veto.
Summarising this discussion, the Chairman explained that following
a lively private debate the result was unchanged and the
requirement for a veto to be agreed by two-thirds of the Panel
membership was not met.
Resolved:
That the Surrey PCP records:
I.
That a majority of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel
(which included the Chairman’s casting vote) did not approve
the PCC’s proposal to increase the Band D Surrey Police and
Crime Commissioner Precept by £13 to
£323.57.
II.
That the requirement for a veto to be agreed by
two-thirds of the Panel membership (which equates to 10 Panel
members) was not met.
III.
That the Panel accepted that the PCC’s
proposal to increase the Band D Surrey Police and Crime
Commissioner Precept by £13 to £323.57 will come into
effect.
IV.
That the Panel expresses disappointment at the
government settlement and the unfair funding formula which places a
disproportionate burden on Surrey residents to fund the
Force. This lack of appropriate level
of government funding should be resolved and is a more appropriate
way to meet Surrey’s needs in the long term.
V.
That the Panel would formally report to the
Commissioner noting its concerns and reasons for Panel members not
supporting the proposed precept (by 8 February).
Action v: Cllr Witham asked for the
Panel’s conclusion around the unfair funding formula which
places a disproportionate burden on Surrey residents to be
circulated to Surrey MPs.